. 5 ?3 




SPEECH 



is- 



OF 






HON. JOHN A. SEARING, 



OF NEW YORK, 



OS 



THE KANSAS QUESTION; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENT ATI VES, MARCH 20, 1958. 



% 






WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1858. 



SPEECH. 



The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the 
smte of the Union — 

Mr. SEARING said: 

Mr. Chairman: I rise, sir, surrounded with 
all the embarrassments that are usually attend- 
ant upon the first effort to address a legislative 
body, and, sir, I feel the position I occupy more 
sensibly, from the fact that I see around me, 
in the occupancy of these seats, gentlemen skilled 
in legislation, versed in the history of the coun- 
try, and who, from education and experience, 
are most aptly fitted for the discharge of the 
high and responsible duties the country has en- 
joined upon them. But, sir, I bring to the dis- 
charge of the duty which my constituents have 
assigned me, very little legislative experience; I 
stand here to-day sustained by none of those ad- 
vantages or influences which the collegiate insti- 
tutions of my country confer, but springing di- 
rectly from the ranks of the people, with whom, 
from my earliest infancy, I have been identified, 
and fortified only by the confident assurance on 
their part, that here, in my place in these Halls, I 
will honestly attempt to give utterance to their sen- 
timents, protect their interests, sustain the honor 
and dignity of my native State, and by every hon- 
orable effort, preserve and perpetuate the har- 
mony, peace, and concord, of all the States of the 
Federal Union. I shall not, Mr. Chairman, at- 
tempt to enter into a long and argumentative de- 
bate upon all the points involved in this discussion, 
but will content myself with assigning some few 
of the reasons which, in all human probability, 
will govern my action in the final disposition of 
this question. 

If a stranger to our political history and insti- 



tutions should be doomed to listen to all the 
speeches of our members and Senators, and pe- 
ruse the many reports, messages, and statistics, 
relating to Kansas, her organization as a Terri- 
tory, and her proposed admission as a State in 
this glorious jConfederacy, he would necessarily 
consider the question as a grand political puzzle, 
to which there was no beginning and no end; and 
itwould seem impossible forhim to gain the thread 
or clew of this American labyrinth, and to trac« 
and follow out correct and sound conclusions to- 
wards its final solution. And, at times, I must 
confess that the ingenious and special pleadings 
of the opponents of this measure seem to cover 
and include the merits of the case. And to clear 
my mind from doubts as to my own duties in the 
premises, I have to refresh my own memory upon 
the history of our country and her institutions 
prior to any serious agitation upon the subject of 
slavery, and coolly review the obligations each 
part of this great nation must preserve to the oth- 
ers, whether those obligations are written in the 
Constitution and laws that govern us, or are made 
clearly apparent and necessary by the experience 
of the past, to preserve our existence as a great 
Republic, a free and independent nation, indissol- 
ubly bound together in the bonds of political con- 
cord and union. 

Digressing, sir, for a moment from the subjec' 
at issue, I would say for myself, as a sort of pro- 
logue to my remarks, that I am a Democrat; and, 
in the application of local adjectives, as used too 
much in this House, would be called a " northern 
Democrat." Rut I cast these local distinctions 
aside; I am a national Democrat; and I will not, 
vote or speak in this House upon any question 



unless I can do so in the capacity of a national 
legislator. I come here to act for the North and 
the South alike; to act for my country, and my 
whole country. I can well recollect of years by- 
gone, when Maine, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 
and South Carolina, members and Senators, met 
in this Capitol, with no objects of legislation but 
those supported in common by the representatives 
of the several parties; and those representatives 
were divided upon the floor of the House and the 
Senate, not by the number of degrees their homes 
happened to be from the equator or the north 
pole, but the Massachusetts Whig and Democrat 
sat down with the Kentucky Whig or Democrat; 
and while they differed, in principle and policy, 
from their Democratic friends of New York and 
Carolina on the other side, all were actuated by 
the same national feelings, and sought, in their 
own way, (by supporting their respective party 
measures,) to promote the prosperity and ad- 
vancement of this great nation. 

But now, sir, when I am called to act as a legis- 
lator for my country, I find that it is only the rep- 
resentatives of one of the great parties of the day 
that seem to fraternize now as then. The oppo- 
nents of the Democracy seem to herd themselves 
together as a party whose boundaries arc defined 
by the compass and chain, and whose principles 
and policies must be shaped by, and subject to, 
the passions, prejudices, and interests, of a por- 
tion of our people, whose physical constitutions 
are inured to a latitude north of Alason and 
Dixon's line; and I find, when a great party 
measure is to be moved, wherein all our national 
men should act in concert, and wherein, of old, 
members and Senators elected as Democrats acted 
unitedly, that many of those whom the nation 
trusted for support become weak and helpless, 
and surrender to this geographical humbug their 
party fealty. I hope, sir, yet to live to see this 
.state of things changed; to once more realize that, 
in our national halls of legislation, the terms 
North, South, East, and West, shall no longer 
•■xist, except to designate the bounds of new Ter- 
ritories and States for this glorious Union. 

I am not one who fears that this Union is in 
danger, until I know that a majority of this House 
and the Senate have forgotten their manhood, their 
love of liberty and liberal institutions, and for- 
saken the principles that were taught them by 
freedom-loving mothers and fathers, and which 
have been preserved by them as the " magna 
charta" of their future hopes and happiness. And, 



sir, should the time come when appearances would 
betoken this position, I would cling to the hope 
of preserving the Union still; and would struggle 
to postpone to the very last year, the last day, and 
the last hour, such a terrible conclusion to the his- 
tory of my country. 

But to return to the question before us: to un- 
derstand clearly the merits of this question we 
must review briefly the position of affairs for a 
brief period prior and up to the time Kansas be- 
came a Territory. 

The prescntTerritory of Kansas became Amer- 
ican territory in 1803, by the treaty of France, 
known as the Louisiana treaty. We received 
this territory under an engagement that it should 
be incorporated in the Union of the United States, 
and admitted as soon as possible, according to 
the principles of the Federal Constitution; and in 
the mean time the inhabitants should be maintained 
and protected in the free enjoyment of their lib- 
erty, property, and the religion which they pro- 
fessed — "mean time," as I understand it, referring 
to the time it remained until its population and 
institutions made it suitable to become a sovereign 
State, when, according to the stipulations on our 
part, it must be admitted on a footing of perfect 
equality with the original States. These treaty 
stipulations bind us, as a nation, with all their 
original force. To be sure, in 1820, ageographical 
line of limitation was adopted as to a part of this 
territory, and was acquiesced in for many years, 
for the reason that there was no opportunity or ne- 
cessity of enforcing it or claiming it, unless in the 
admission of Texas, which came in under another 
treaty than that. But when it was sought to be ap- 
plied upon territory acquired by us from Mexico, 
the North refused to be governed by this limita- 
tion; and on the occasion of the admission of the 
StateofCalifornia,and the organization of the Ter- 
ritories of New Mexico, Utah, and Washington, 
the enactmentknown as the Missouri compromise 
ceased to be of any binding force, and very prop- 
erly, too; for believing, as I do, thereby a geo- 
graphical line between one portion of this great 
nation and the other, that never should have been 
established, was virtually repealed, as it then 
ceased to have any binding virtue upon the North 
or South, although it stood upon our statute- 
book 

Mr. OLIN. Did I understand the gentleman 
to say that either the North or the South under- 
stood that the Missouri compromise restriction 
was repealed by the act of 1850? 



Mr. SEARING. I said that virtually it was 
repealed. 

Mr. ATKINS. I will answer the gentleman. 
It was so understood by Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, 
and so declared by him in an address to his con- 
stitutents in 1850. 

Mr. SEARING. When the time arrived for 
the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, and al- 
though it was virtually repealed before, and was 
dead and inoperative, still the formal repeal of that 
enactment was seized upon as a subject of politi- 
cal excitement and agitation in the North, and 
was perhaps the original corner-stone of the or- 
ganization of a sectional party in this country, 
and in my opinion as dangerous and odious a po- 
litical organization as ever cursed a nation in the 
world. It owed its conception in opposition to 
the law of the land, and to the general principles 
that should govern all our national legislative 
action. And the history of the Republican party 
siuce its organization is just such a history as 
might be expected from an origin so illegal, un- 
constitutional and arili-national in its character; 
and the staple articles of its progress have been 
agitation, opposition to law and order, revolution- 
ary movements, robberies, arsons, murder, and 
crimes in general, perpetrated and perpetuated 
under the guise of liberty and freedom. Yet 
Kansas and Nebraska became a Territory with- 
out a geographical line of distinction to determine 
what their local institutions should be as to the 
question of slavery; and since then Kansas alone 
has become the theater where have been played 
the political comedies and tragedies, prepared for 
political effect in regions remote from her borders. 

The game of the Republican party has been the 
auti-law-and-order game from the beginning to 
the present time. They refuse to act and vote un- 
less in the way and at the time prescribed by them 
a.s a political party, and then only when they can 
insure to themselves the whole game. At one 
tim • pronouncing the acts of the territorial offt- 
eiala and Legislature as bogus and not binding, 
and at another recognizing them and acting under 
them, in the election of officers, just as the move 
seemed to be the one conducive to their ascend- 
ency. But in the midst of all these erratic move- 
ments, a legally constituted Territorial Legisla- 
ture passed an art to take the sense of the people 
of Kansas on the subject of forming a State gov- 
ernment, and asking admission into the Union. 
At this election the vote was almost unanimous 
ef the people of Kansas in favorof a convention; 



and afterwards the Territorial Legislature, by a 
two-thirds vote, passed a law providing for the 
election of delegates to a constitutional conven- 
tion. Under that law delegates were elected, who 
met in convention and made this constitution, 
submitting to the people of Kansas, at a special 
election, on the 21st of December, 1857, the ques- 
tion whether the slavery clause should be stricken 
out or not. At this election the majority of votes 
cast were in favor of the constitution as it waa 
passed by the convention; and now this constitu- 
tion comes to us, and the question is, can we re- 
fuse to admit Kansas under that constitution or 
net? 

Our opponents say, no; Kansas should not 
come in as a State until the constitution has been 
submitted. I answer, it has been submitted by 
the fact that the people, by almost a unanimous 
vote, decided and authorized their representatives 
in the Territorial Legislature to provide by law 
for a convention of delegates to form this consti- 
tution. They said so; and the delegates to that 
convention were elected by the people to form 
and frame a constitution, and the constitution 
framed by them became the constitution and law 
of Kansas, as far as we are concerned, from the 
time it was made complete and final by them un- 
til the same power, the people, altered that con- 
stitution. The convention wisely deemed that 
the people themselves should finish this constitu- 
tion by their own act, at a special election on the 
21st day cf December, 1857, and this was also 
done; and we have the constitution of Kansas be- 
fore its, made by their regularly elected repre- 
sentatives and finished by the people themselves. 
This statement of the matter is, as it appears to 
me, fully divested of all the clap trap attendant 
circumstances, with which we have, in my opin- 
ion, nothing to do; and when it comes to me thus, 
I can sec no other way than to accept it, and en- 
roll Kansas among the States of the Union; and 
with these convictions, my heart and reason are 
in favor of this course. 

But I shall not leave the question, Mr. Chair- 
man, without a due brief consideration of some 
of the views supported and held by the other side. 
I do not consider myself so much an orator or a 
political rcasoner, that I wish to take^ up the time 
of this House with a lengthy review and reply 
of all that has been said against the admission of 
Kunsas under this constitution, for much has 
been said that is unanswerable, because it has no 
point or force in it. It is of the Buncombe, spread- 



6 



eagle style of argument, that tends more to amuse 
and confuse men than to convince their reason. 
In what I have said I have tried to elucidate this 
question, as it appears to me, without prejudice or 
passion concerning thecircumstances surrounding 
it; and I will try to answer the main objections to 
this bill in the same way. The people of any State 
or Territory have the right to empower others to 
represent themselves in making constitutions or 
laws. To deny this would be to deny the sover- 
eignty of the people. Our opponents say the peo- 
ple of Kansas have never delegated their pow- 
ers to others in this question, nor have they ever 
expressed their assent in any manner to this Le- 
compton constitution. It is true, however, that 
they expressed their will to be that a constitution 
should be formed. The Territorial Legislature was 
the only organized body representing the people 
to make the necessary arrangements to carry their 
will into effect; and thatthe convention mightrep- 
resent truly the people, the act provided that be- 
tween the 1st of March and 1st of April, 1857, a 
complete list of all qualified voters should be taken 
and filed in the ofiice of the probate judge, and 
eopies of the lists posted in public places; and from 
the 1st d;iy of April to the 1st of May, the probate 
judge should hold court to correct said returns, 
so that if any were not registered in the returns, 
they might be added. This list or register of voters 
was then to be returned to the Governor and Sec- j 
retary, who upon them made the apportionment; 
of the members of the constitutional convention 
throughout the Territory. 

The qualification of voters at this election of 
delegates, was, every " bonafule inhabitant of Kan- 
sas, on the third Monday of June, 1857, being a j 
citizen of the United States, and over twenty-one 
years of age, and a resident of the county where [ 
he offers to vote, for three months prior to said I 
election." This act was a fair one, and well cal- 
culated to obtain a fair expression of the people ] 
of Kansas. But many refused to be registered: 
that is, refused to act as citizens in this matter. I 
Here was the first disposition manifested by a 
portion of the inhabitants of this Territory to re- 1 
fuse to express themselves on this subject. How- 
ever, over nine thousand were registered and re- ; 
turned, making over three fourths of the voters ; 
of the Territory. Governor Walker and Stanton ; 
tried to induce the people all to act; but their ad- 
vice was not heeded. Governor Stanton made the | 
apportionment, and at the election of delegates, I 
the people of Kansas had another opportunity to 



express their action on this question; but if re- 
ports are true, many refused or neglected so to do. 

The convention assembled, duly and legally 
constituted, and afterwards, as our opponents say, 
the majority of the people of Kansas expressed no 
opinion as to the slavery clause in the constitu- 
tion; and thus a constitution has been made by a 
convention originating with the people, and from 
the people; but, as they say, not by the people. 

This, I am inclined to think, presents what may 
be aptly called a political paradox. If what our 
opponents say is true, that this constitution is re- 
pugnant to the majority of the people of Kansas, 
and the majority are opposed to slavery, it pre- 
sents two points to me: either they were cowardly 
and were afraid to contest the matter for fear of 
being beaten, and preferred irregular action; or 
they were willing that the constitution should be 
made in this manner, and, by their silence and in- 
action, gave consent. Either point is conclusive 
as against them. Our opponents say the bona fide 
voters of Kansas could and might do so and so. 
If so, why in God's name did they not do it? If 
they were opposed to a slavery constitution, why 
did not they vote down the slavery clause? Their 
neglect or refusal to exercise the power to make 
or alter this constitution, if they had it, is inex- 
cusable; and I think that if they have had the op- 
portunity, and refused to act, they should have 
the power again only when they are members of 
a sovereign State. And this kind of assertions 
only strengthen us in the conviction that it is time 
the people of this Union should no longer be vexed 
and harassed by the internal political partisans 
and political fights of Kansas; and we should not 
be obliged to correct their evils, if such exist in 
her borders, because she'is yet a Territory. Make 
her a State; and if her sons needs must fight, let 
it be a free one among themselves. 

On the other hand, if these Kansas republi- 
cans are not as strong as they pretend, and can- 
not succeed or make a show of strength, except in 
irregular guerrilla political manifestations, that 
they show great talent in maintaining, then and 
in such case, this constitution represents the voice 
of Kansas, and should be received, of course. 
I cannot for my life see any merits in the oppo- 
sition to the constitution. It is a mere technical 
question. If all they say is true, the remedy is 
in their own hands, and sooner, by being admit- 
ted as a State, than in any other mode whatever 
can it be obtained. It resolves itself into a mere 
question of politicaiyinesse or practice — onecalcu- 



lated to prolong these difficulties, and by their in- 
crease, and corresponding increase of sectional 
bitterness, endanger the future of Kansas and the 
peace and safety of the Union. 

I have said that the basis of the opposition to 
this bill was laid in mere technicality. The logic 
of its opponents is what lawyers call special plead- 
ing, and does not go to the merits of the matter 
at issue. I believe they all profess to wish the 
speedy admission of Kansas, but object to her ad- 
mission under this constitution. It is in reality 
a plea of delay; and if they succeed in defeating 
this bill, they wish to go back to Kansas for an- 
other trial, another passage at arms in that dis- 
tracted Territory, with the whole Union as anxious 
spectators, and deeply excited in the issues, and 
new embarrassments will surround the question; 
and before it shall again come before us for action, 
this great nation may be convulsed from center 
to circumference with deep, lasting, and direful 
agitation. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, in a matter 
of this kind, "delays are dangerous," perhaps 
ruinous to the body-poliiic of this great Union. 
And we now have it in our power to prevent and 
provide against these consequences; and if we 
refuse so to do, we are blind to our duty, careless 
and indifferent to our obligations as the represent- 
atives of a great nation, bound by the conditions 
of a solemn treaty that they must admit this Ter- 
ritory into their Federal Union as soon as possi- 
ble, and bound by that treaty and the Constitu- 
tion of the Union to secure to the inhabitants of 
this Territory all the rights and privileges of a 
sovereign State of the Union, which gives them 
full power to regulate their social institutions as 
they wish, without let or hindrance or control by 
the Federal Government. 

We have given to the people of this Territory, 
in general terms in their organic act, the right to 
act for themselves as to the manner and form they 
shall present themselves for admission as a State. 
If I were to act as a legislator of this nation, in or- 
ganizing a new Territory, I would seek to pre- 
vent the troubles of this question by providing in 
the organic act creating the Territory, for the sub- 
mission of the constitution, under which they 
might hereafter seek admission as a State, to a 
popular vote. But it is too late, in my opinion, 
now to compel the people of Kansas to do this. 
If we assume to dictate to them now, as to the 
manner they shall adopt this constitution before 
they can become a State, we may also dictate to 
them what the provisions of that constitution shall 



be ; and by carrying out this principle still further, 
there will be no end to the power we may presume 
to exercise over their action; and thus shall we 
establish a precedent in the action and power of 
the Federal Government in direct conflict with the 
constitutional doctrine and principles that, as a 
Federal Government, we can exercise no power 
unless created by the Constitution itself— that all 
other rights and powers remain with the people 
themselves; a precedent which, if followed in the 
future, would be the beginning ofa warfare against 
the sovereign rights of the people as secured by 
the Constitution; it would be the annihilation of 
State rights and popular sovereignty; it would 
centralize in this capital a despotism that might 
exercise its sway from Maine to Georgia and from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific. In the French revo- 
lution, amid the days stigmatized throughout the 
world as the " days of terror and blood," when 
thousands of the wisest, most ardent champions 
of true popular freedom were led to the scaffold 
as victims of freedom's vengeance, when our own 
beloved La Fayette was forced to flee from this 
deluge of uncontrolled passion and violence, the 
popular cry of the masses and their leaders, who 
moved in these terrible scenes, and became the 
ministers and executioners in this bloody work, 
was " liberty and equality." 

It is said that when Madame Roland, than whom 
no one was more devoted to the cause of freedom, 
no one more opposed in every principle and action 
of her life to tyranny and despotism, was brought 
to the scaffold of death as a victim to the uncon- 
trolled passions and prejudices of the misguided 
multitude, the popular cry of " liberty and equal- 
ity" was heard around this fearful death scene; 
and on the public square fronting this terrible scene 
arose the statue of the Goddess of Liberty. Ma- 
dame Roland raised her eyes towards this statue, 
and said: "Liberty! oh, Liberty! what horrors 
are perpetrated in thy name !" And when I hear 
the Opposition arrayed against this bill, and using 
as their battle-cry, "popular sovereignty, "I think 
they are misguided and deluded, or they are de- 
termined in the wrong and against the right, and 
are willfully arrayed against the very principles 
they profess to advocate. 

I have been a Democrat all my life, and as such 
been a close observer of all the tactics of the op- 
position to the Democracy; and I notice this fact, 
that when the people have indorsed the conserva- 
tive action of that great national party, and our 
opponents have been routed " horse and foot," 



8 



that they seize upon the very principles advocated 
by the Democracy, and by distorting and misin- 
terpreting them seek to gain their original objects, 
and build up anew their scattered army. 

In 1856, with James Buchanan as our leader- 
in-chief, we met the combined forces of aboli- 
tionism, sectionalism, and all other " isms" that 
have cursed our country for a quarter of a cen- 
tury; and with "popular sovereignty" as our 
watchword and principle, we triumphed. And 
now we have these men here advocating this doc- 
trine in our national Halls of legislation, and by 
their special pleadings, their misinterpretations of 
the whole principle, seeking to distract and divide 




their opponents, and 01 g 08g ^ 

successfully. ^ 

Democrats, will you be deceived and drawn 
from your high and noble position ? It is the sam« 
"old coon," only with a new coat of hair. They 
are doomed to be again disappointed. The na- 
tional Democracy can spare those of their forces 
who are weak and trembling, and who have put 
their hands to the plow and look back. And still 
they will triumph, and their triumph will be the 
joy and the pride of the Union; for it will be the 
union of the North and the South , and the East and 
the West, in stronger bonds than ever; and which, 
God grant, may be as enduring as time itself. 



L1BRA RY OF CONGRESS 



016 089 320 5 



